Urban planning community

Poll results: Does news of confirmed links between Iraq and Al Quada change things?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • No - Bush is a bad man and must be defeated at all costs

    6 24.00%
  • Maybe - But I hate Bush anyway.

    5 20.00%
  • Maybe - I always thought there might be more to this story.

    5 20.00%
  • Yes - I have to give President Bush his due: He was right.

    0 0%
  • Yes - But I've always believed he was right on this matter.

    4 16.00%
  • Huh? or See my different answer below:

    5 20.00%
+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Hey Molly: Shrub may have been right.

  1. #1
    Cyburbian el Guapo's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Samsara
    Posts
    5,075

    Hey Molly: Shrub may have been right.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/152lndzv.asp

    Quote Originally posted by
    The Connection
    From the June 7, 2004 issue: The collaboration of Iraq and al Qaeda.
    by Stephen F. Hayes
    06/07/2004, Volume 009, Issue 37

    "THE PRESIDENT CONVINCED the country with a mixture of documents that turned out to be forged and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda," claimed former Vice President Al Gore last Wednesday.

    "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," declared Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, in an interview on March 21, 2004.

    The editor of the Los Angeles Times labeled as "myth" the claim that links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been proved. A recent dispatch from Reuters simply asserted, "There is no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." 60 Minutes anchor Lesley Stahl was equally certain: "There was no connection."

    And on it goes. This conventional wisdom--that our two most determined enemies were not in league, now or ever--is comforting. It is also wrong.

    In late February 2004, Christopher Carney made an astonishing discovery. Carney, a political science professor from Pennsylvania on leave to work at the Pentagon, was poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein's much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam. One name stood out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before, but such discrepancies are common. Having studied the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for 18 months, he immediately recognized the potential significance of his find. According to a report last
    week in the Wall Street Journal, Shakir appears on three different lists of Fedayeen officers.

    An Iraqi of that name, Carney knew, had been present at an al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8, 2000. U.S. intelligence officials believe this was a chief planning meeting for the September 11 attacks.....

  2. #2
    Corn Burning Fool giff57's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 1998
    Location
    On the Mother River
    Posts
    4,581
    I am curious to see the Wall Street Journal article. I have said this in another board I frequent. I hold as much stock in The Weekly Standard as EG does Al Franken. I would like to see some of this stuff from an un-bias source.

    Of course the war isn't my biggest beef with GWB. I only have minor issues with that, and much of that comes from hindsight. I will say, I do not think we are any more safe, and perhaps less so than before we took out sadam. I don't have the answer, except I think more of the huge dollars we are spending in Iraq could be used in homeland security. Lets get it done and get out ASAP.
    “As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall”
    Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  3. #3
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,751
    I would say wow, this changes things, but it does not. W was right, he is right, and he will continue to be right. He is not much of a politician, and people rip on him for that. But what he is a real man. A man that makes up his mind on an issue, is not afraid to let people know his choice.

    Even though many people said that there was no connection... more people asked how could there not be. Now no one needs to ask anything. We just need to kick the a$$ of terrorism.
    Invest in the things today, that provide the returns tomorrow.

  4. #4
    Member Wulf9's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Near the Geysers
    Posts
    922
    I am not sure that a guy in the Pentagon who found some paper record of a terrorist and an Iraqi officer with the same name (but spelled differently) is enough to convince me.

    I usually wait for corroboration, particularly when the source is one like the Weekly Standard. It seems to me that we are in a heap of woe because we didn't check our sources well before going to war. And it was the Weekly Standard that beat the war drums the loudest based on WMD.

    One of the themes in anti-war rallies in our area is parents of soldiers who want their children home. They were willing to send them off to defend the United States, but with the growing evidence that the administration was either sloppy or untruthful in its justifiction for war is causing them a lot of anguish.

  5. #5
          freewaytincan's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Richardson | Texas
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally posted by Wulf9
    I am not sure that a guy in the Pentagon who found some paper record of a terrorist and an Iraqi officer with the same name (but spelled differently) is enough to convince me.

    I usually wait for corroboration, particularly when the source is one like the Weekly Standard. It seems to me that we are in a heap of woe because we didn't check our sources well before going to war. And it was the Weekly Standard that beat the war drums the loudest based on WMD.

    One of the themes in anti-war rallies in our area is parents of soldiers who want their children home. They were willing to send them off to defend the United States, but with the growing evidence that the administration was either sloppy or untruthful in its justifiction for war is causing them a lot of anguish.


    So two things:

    1) Why should it have to be JUST Al-bastards? I mean, consider that Saddam supported other terrorists.

    2) What's with this whole liberal obsession with vengeance. I mean, I thought you guys were beyond revenge? Newsflash! It's not about revenge, because it's about stopping terrorists from doing these things before they can!

  6. #6
    Quote Originally posted by Wulf9
    I am not sure that a guy in the Pentagon who found some paper record of a terrorist and an Iraqi officer with the same name (but spelled differently) is enough to convince me.
    I agree with you...and why should anyone believe anything that comes out of this administration regarding Iraq as it turns out that everything else they told us has been based on lies. Bush gained support for this war by scaring the American publis into thinking that IRaq actually posed some type of a gathering threat. He has also done a great job at convincing Americans that anyone of Arab descent is automatically a suspected terrorist.
    "I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are."

    - Homer Simpson

  7. #7
    Cyburbian SGB's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve
    Posts
    3,387

    Revisionist historians

    So a discover made in February 2004 of a link between Iraq and Al-Queda (if it is indeed true) can justify a war that started a year earlier? B-)

    I thought our armed forces were sent to war based on current information at the time, not speculation of future information yet to be discovered.
    All these years the people said he’s actin’ like a kid.
    He did not know he could not fly, so he did.
    - - Guy Clark, "The Cape"

  8. #8
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,329
    I'm with SGB's sentiments.

    Why worry about trying to justify something that's already done. We're there and in the thick of it, so the new push should be to setup Iraqis with enough tools to become a stable, healthy nation where there isn't oppression of dissent.

    This needs to be done as soon as possible.

    And it looks like the above could most effectively be accomplished through democractic government, but that really needs to be up to the Iraqis with US advice (not proscription).

    BTW, I voted "Maybe", but Bush has still got to go.
    Last edited by mendelman; 01 Jun 2004 at 11:08 AM.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    Let's not be didactic in this profession, because that is a path to disillusion and irrelevancy.

    Six seasons and a movie!

  9. #9
    Member Wulf9's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Near the Geysers
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally posted by freewaytincan
    So two things:

    1) Why should it have to be JUST Al-bastards? I mean, consider that Saddam supported other terrorists.

    2) What's with this whole liberal obsession with vengeance. I mean, I thought you guys were beyond revenge? Newsflash! It's not about revenge, because it's about stopping terrorists from doing these things before they can!
    1. There are many governments that sponsoer "terror" against other nations but not the U.S. We now have our entire military tied down in one of those nations, not in addressing nations that have the potential to harm the U.S. That's not good judgement in my opinion.

    2. Vengeance? Liberal? Not true on either case. I am an anti-war moderate. And I don't see where vengeance comes in at all.

    I think we did the "war on terror" in exactly the wrong way. First, we should have defined what terror is and who are terrorists. (It's not just people we don't like.) We should have really mopped up in Afghanistan, which is where the terror bases were. We should have kept our worldwide alliances because it takes worldwide cooperation to fight terror. It's obvious in retrospect that there was more time for negotiation and to build a coalition against Iraq. We should have done that, and maybe war would not have been necessary. If it was, we could have had a true coalition (not just Britain and Tonga as allies). And above all, we have tied up our military in a war we probably didn't have to fight, against a nation that wasn't a true threat to the United States. We have shown the limits of our military. I don't know if the Iraqi resistance was pre-planned, but other nations are studying it as a way to resist American military operations if we are to attack them. If it was pre-planned, that is Saddam's revenge.

  10. #10
    Cyburbian otterpop's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Down by Dun Ringill
    Posts
    6,043
    Blog entries
    6
    I knew that if they looked long enough they could find some link. Just about any Moslem nation will have links to a terrorist organization if you look long and hard enough. You don't even have to look very hard to find them in Saudi Arabia.

    The invasion of Iraq was never about protecting us from terrorism. It wasn't about getting rid of Saddam to free the Iraqi people. It was about protecting our national interest regarding oil supplies. We don't say that. We prefer to couch our self-interest in noble terms, but I think most of the other nations see it for what it is.

    That is, of course, my own opinion. Others feel differently.

  11. #11
    Cyburbian The One's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where Valley Fever Lives
    Posts
    7,324

    Hmmmm......

    Conveniently Timed Eh? What does this say about the bookworm nerds in our intelligence agencies? You know, the one's that don't like to get their feet dirty anymore (prefer the office setting and occasional vacation to visit the field, aka 5 star hotels). Anyway, unless someone confirms beyond the "similar" name (such as photo/other surveillance), its a stretch to use this as the "link". Maybe our intel people could focus on finding and keeping track of the bad guy's for the Billions we spend on their services....
    Last edited by The One; 02 Jun 2004 at 2:29 PM.

  12. #12
    Cyburbian The One's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where Valley Fever Lives
    Posts
    7,324

    CIA Resignation

    Looks like DCI ran his course......hmmm personal reasons.....sounds like mis-information to me.. ..I heard a CIA expert on NPR today talking about how one of the main continuing problems with the agency is that they continue to assign Senior Analysts B-) to Chief of Mission posts when that job should and traditionally was handled by someone with field training and expertise (not the book reading ivory tower, office sitting reflecting on their 3 PhD types.. ..) Then this guy said that the deputy director of operations had 80 million bucks :-0 in the bank and did his job for the love of country....(ex financial officer for some company....) I'm not one to go "old school" for anything, but maybe intelligence is one exception.....

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Poll: arborvitae shrub or tree?
    Design, Space, and Place
    Replies: 12
    Last post: 30 May 2006, 11:06 AM